My wife and I just got back from Kansas City, where we returned to learn about Dick Cheney’s speech last night to the Center For Security Policy. Cheney revealed that the Bush administration had given the incoming Obama team a carefully developed strategy for the war in Afghanistan, and that it was a false allegation that the new administration had to start from scratch in developing a policy. “They asked us not to announce our findings publicly,” Cheney said, “and we agreed, giving them the benefit of our work and the benefit of the doubt.”

Now, of course, Rahm Emanuel is seeking to blame the supposed need for a careful review on the failures of the previous administration, and to find some way to account for Obama’s indecisiveness on the issue of what to do in Afghanistan. Cheney, as expected, argues that General McChrystal’s recommendations are solid and well thought out, and that Obama should implement them immediately. “Now,” he added, “they seem to be pulling back and blaming others for their failure to implement the strategy they embraced. It’s time for President Obama to do what it takes to win a war he has repeatedly and rightly called a war of necessity.”

The problem is that because Cheney is making that argument, liberals and Democrats will run to say that this is the position of the extreme right-wing, and hence should be abandoned. After all, Obama ran as the anti-Bush, and any policy put forth by the former vice-president is for the liberal-left going to be reason enough to reject it.

That is why the new issue of The New Republic that was waiting for me in the mail is so important. It contains in its pages two major articles on the U.S. and Afghanistan. The first is by Peter Bergen, a senior fellow at The New America Foundation, and author of a highly regarded book on Osama Bin Laden. Bergen argues that the argument we are hearing today from so many, that al-Qadea is the real enemy and is in Pakistan and that hence we can ignore and forget about the Taliban and Afghanistan, is completely false.

His point is that the evidence clearly shows that they are not distinct groups, and in fact have essentially merged into one new jihadist body. The heart of his argument is this:

These arguments point toward one conclusion: The effort to secure Afghanistan is not a matter of vital U.S. interest. But those who make this case could not be more mistaken. Afghanistan and the areas of Pakistan that border it have always been the epicenter of the war on jihadist terrorism–and, at least for the foreseeable future, they will continue to be. Though it may be tempting to think otherwise, we cannot defeat Al Qaeda without securing Afghanistan.

If returned to power in Afghanistan, Bergen shows, the Taliban would not become responsible and moderate, as “realists” like Stephen Walt and others claim. They will not become, he quips, “an ultra-rational clique of Henry Kissingers.” And if we fail to defend Afghanistan, al-Qaeda will gain new momentum and strength. To gain their ends, they want and need a state; and if we let them have control over Afghanistan, we will most assuredly up the ante for a major new attack on our homeland.

55 Comments, 55 Threads

1.
dan

We should also encourage India to conquer Pakistan.

Seriously.

Or shall we hang all this good strategy on securing a haven in Afghanistan, while the 30 million Taliban of the FATA and NWFP go on providing the Taliban its base, its soldiers, its havens, its wilderness of mirrors? Obviously the Pakistani Army is not going to do the job; they could have many many times over the past, oh, 60 years. If it is true that the tribes of these regions are simply captive and not actually – as I presume they are – just the slightly milder fathers and uncles of the Taliban, how is it that a population of 30 million, tightly controlled by tribal shura, lineage controls, bloodfeuds, can allow an army of radicals to take it over and rule it?

And obviously ISI is an enemy.

Nor can we simply invade sovereign Pakistani territory. We could, but then if we had been in a mood to do so, we wouldn’t have spent the past 9 years grovelling to their “civilian leadership” and paying them Huge amounts of cash and providing strategic weapons – after nearly a decade of that, it is difficult to imagine the architects of the policy would suddenly pick up their balls and wade into the most hostile & medieval place on Earth.

So – I agree with you Mr. Radosh, however: what about Pakistan? In my opinion, why is Pakistan allowed still to exist? What other country on Earth is positively crying out to be conquered utterly and delivered from its misery? Where are the Mongols when you need them?

The usual suspects will bellow until they are hoarse, but I say deal multiculturalism a hard blow by setting up continental preparatory regimes for those parts of Asia, Africa & South America that are governed as well today as South Vietnam was when a Buddhist monk immolated himself to protest the harsh policies of the Diem government. FDR had, at the very least, the beginnings of a plan that would have a council run things, and for the Vietnamese to learn from this council, how a country should be run. It’s in “Lost Crusade: America in Vietnam” by Chester L. Cooper.

Is it worth it. Absolutely, if nothing else to put one over on the rudderless revisionists.

I think we are dealing with a President and an Administration that is simply not ready for prime time. The President and his two major advisers (Emmanuel and Axelrod) seen to be in over their heads. Maybe Hillary was right about that call at 3 AM.

The Won has only two choices;
1) Give General McChrystal the troops and supplies he is requesting and let the military fight until victory is achieved or;
2) Recall all our troops home now (because leaving them in the current situation isn’t doing them, Afghanistan, or the US any good) but be willing and man enough to accept the blame and consequences when thousands, if not millions, of both Afghanis and Americans are killed by the terrorists in the coming months and years.

The man is, to take a line from Hilary Clinton ‘..a speaker, not a doer’.

The ‘Present’ votes were cast as such for Obama was playing the political card. To see where the sea of America’s ideas sway (not his own, mind you) and doggy paddle that direction.

This is why the guy is dragging his feet on Afghanistan.

His coffers from the Presidential election and elections past, the naive folks who attend his leg tingling speeches are against terrorist activities of course. Though needn’t wish to go to war to deter it. Neither does Obama.

‘The war of necessity’ is empty rhetoric (“just words”). Obama (and his backers) don’t wish to commit. In essence, going against the will of a country that is concerned. Wait, obligated in maintaining a free and strong republic.

This ‘.. necessity’ is against the man’s ideals. He’s a speaker. One who has notiecably gotten worse due to his dependence on other writers, advisers and czars. He’s created his own monster..

Obama has never led, been in charge or made difficult decisions in the past because he’s a junior Chicago political hack. Carried on the shoulders of empty platitudes and fictitious successes of his ‘Cook County accomplishments’ (crickets chirping).

“Cheney revealed that the Bush administration had given the incoming Obama team a carefully developed strategy for the war in Afghanistan, and that it was a false allegation that the new administration had to start from scratch in developing a policy.”

I wonder why Bush/Cheney didn’t employ their “carefully developed strategy” while they were in office, or was it their “strategy” to lose focus and let early successes unravel? Who can blame Obama for starting from scratch?

Everybody knew that. This was not a mystery. A slight majority of American voters, however, wanted to lie to themselves. Barack Obama is a poor read and shallow human being. He lacks the education to even begin handling the responsibilities of the presidency. A Harvard University soft science degree is often unearned. This is especially true when those running the school wish to boost their affirmative action numbers. Obama essentially only possesses the ability to read a speech off a teleprompter. He is unlikely able to read a serious book.

Kipling and Laurence would both
have advised us to stay out of
Afghanistan, and both recommended
Plan A, if we decided to go in.

If they were briefed on our 21st
century surveillance and security
systems, they would have added
that an allied Afghan tribe so
equipped, able to detect and destroy
intruders, would need no further
assistance from the US, except for
the occasional air strike against
a large, concentrated enemy attack.

Strawman argument. Everybody wants victory in Afghanistan, the debate is over what operational approach will produce victory.

Bilbo 44, timing is an essential element of warfare. The McCrystal plan is flawed, no matter who the author was. Iraq is NOT Afghanistan, Afghani’s are NOT Iraqi’s.
What worked in Iraq will fail in Afghanistan. It is not possible to nation build in Afghanistan. That is because the gani’s DON’T WANT a nation. They prefer tribal warlodism.
So a CT ops plan based on winning hearts and minds of Iraqi’s will leave the gani’s cold at best. At worst, it will increase the number of insurgents.
Then there is the logistics issue. A CT approach will require between 500,000 and 1 million soldiers. a Hard number would be 650,000. Where are all those soldiers coming from? How will they be feed, armed a clothed? There is only 1 airport large enough to handle US air transports. Building more would take a year or so, maybe longer, since everything needed to build the airport would have to be brought in.
The USA produces about 2.5 million combat age citizens every year. It would require a draft to get more then 10% of them in uniform. So not only do we not have the numbers needed and cannot support them in an emergency, there is no prospect of getting those numbers.
Remember what President Lincoln discovered; The surest sign of incompetence in a General is a request for endless troop increases. Obama has the cart in front of the horse. You tell the General what he has to work with, then if he can’t do the job with that, fire him and find a General that can.

What I am afraid of is an LBJ “solution” to Afganistan. I well remember a picture of LBJ crawling around on a floor that had a huge map of Vietnam. He was picking out targets for individual bomber attacks that he was going to allow. That one picture told the whole story of why 50,000 Americans died in Vietnam.

I hope to not see another example of a polititian giving the military a goal and then hamstringing their efforts. Otherwise we shall again see many 10s of thousands of unnecessary causulities caused by our own polititians.

You are correct about the issues facing the US in Afghanistan. However no modern President in the last 50 years, well maybe Reagan had the cojones, would ever order a “total war” action against a nation as Lincoln authorized Grant & Sherman to do to the South. Also the “international community” would crucify and try to bring up on war crimes charges any President who did authorize such action.

iT’S TIME TO PULL OUT;NO MORE VIETNAMS!the idea of being quagmired in Afghanistan, while hundreds of thousands of muslims continue to immigrate into the US is an absurdity.Obaman has no intention of fighting to win.

Define victory in Afghanistan: also known as the graveyard of empires.
I agree in part with “birther” Samford, “What worked in Iraq will fail in Afghanistan. It is not possible to nation build in Afghanistan. That is because the gani’s DON’T WANT a nation. They prefer tribal warlordism.”
The variables in that problem are numerous and complicated. Alexander the Great decided not to untie the knot of time but to cut it. Why is the U.S. in the nation building business? That strategy has yet to work.
The short form for cutting the knot is:
kill the Taliban
Burn the opium fields
Leave
Come back if the Taliban regroup and if their is a CIA left at home to give early warning.

Time for a commitment o victory in Af? . . . you’re eight years too late. Thanks for nothing, clownservatives.

Hmmmm let me see I believe it was my Democrat/Liberal Senators and Representative who voted for authorizing the use of force in Iraq and voted in favor of the Patriot Act after I (a conservative mind you) contacted them expressing my opposition to both.

Kind of blows your little statement out of the water don’t it N&T? I knew many liberals and moderates who were in favor of selling their liberty for the illusion of security and were all for going into Iraq too.

You call for unity from Americans but we have the great divider in the WH. Obambi has no interest in making a decision about Afghanistan since a decision would mean a commitment and that might lead to a political loss if things go awry, and for Obambi politics always trumps national security. I also see commentators and pundits on the left blaming the “previous administration” for the mess in Afghanistan. How convenient it is for them to forget the vitriol that President Bush was exposed to, the constant and never ending stream of hatred, death threats and vile humor that he was subjected to by the lefties, by the likes of Soros, and the Huff post, the daily kos, code pink, the print media, the tv talking airheads, late nite talk shows and even members of congress. Did you forget already the infamous Harry Reid standing up and saying that the surge would fail, that the war is lost?? Yet if Obambi is criticized you are labeled a racist. He’s doing more to deeply divide the country then any President I can remember. And the awful and well known secret is that Obambi thrives on this division. He loves a crisis it’s what gives him the openings he needs to destroy and steal our country. This country won’t start to heal until Obambi is thrown out of office.

Why is the U.S. in the nation building business? That strategy has yet to work.

I must respectfully disagree. Look at Japan & Western Europe, however if you were to make the argument that the post WWII era was more of a “nation re-building” rather than “nation building” I’d have to concede that point.

Personally I happen to agree and wonder why we’re spending our money on people who are both religiously and culturally our enemies whether we want to acknowledge it or not. I’d also like to clarify that every person who self identifies as Muslim is not our enemy, however the true believers who strictly follow the Quran, Sunnah, and want Sharia imposed everywhere are.

I don’t know if this article is a joke or what.
The Communist in Chief is busy destroying the economy and the freedom of Speech and enterprise, this administration made up of commies and jihadists is governing through czars and ukases, the dollar is in free fall, the press is under control or under attack…
America is governed by a communist administration that has the same goals of the talebans, and the pundits spend time blathering.

I am an American Soldier, a senior non commissioned officer in the combat arms. I have several deployments and two invasions behind me.

We should leave.

Why?

We are fighting ourselves. The fighters are diversely funded and equipped. The funding for the fighters comes from profits made through business with the US of A. The Chinese supply small arms, ammunition, and explosives – IED’s, rockets, etc. The Pakistani’s move Taliban and AQ fighters around with their own helicopters.

Money comes from the Saudi’s which they got from the US. That money pays fighters and their families, their expenses. Etc.,

This is modern war. It is not the World Wars of the past, but it is a World at War just the same.

The US is fighting several fronts. The economic front, the energy front, and the blood and treasure front. And then there are the elected communists in office; purposely and knowingly dismantling the economy.

As a Soldier, I don’t want to see another brother killed while fighting some tribesman equipped, paid and trained by American dollars. Dollars initially spent at WalMart buying chineses goods, or at the gas station paying for foreign oil we because we refuse to use our own.

Am I supportive of military action? You bet! If we are in it to win. But if you want to play games, do it with your own asses.

The thing is, none of this is secret stuff. The State Department knows the Chinese are fighting us through proxy. They have lodged formal protests. And the respons was “Duly noted.”

We don’t even have to mention Iranian support; that’s a given.

We can win Afghanistan any time we wish to. But that is not the Commanders Intent.

Wars are best fought short and sharp. Tremendous devastation and destruction, so much so that the will of your enemy is shattered. Peace is a by product of security.

Well, I could in fact laugh thinking to what will happen when the internationalist subversives who are acting now against America AND ARE ON THE PAY ROLL of the rich muslim countries will discover what happens to the “useful idiots”…

But I venerate God Who Is Infinite Love and I cannot really laugh about the tragedies of the world that wants to lose its compass…

Thank you for the opportunity to comment

PS Neither in commie worlds ANY “revolutionary” ever survived: the “first generation” was slaughtered by stalin,
and so did mao, and so did castro, etc.
And so did hitler (SS versus SA).

I think the first commitment would be for Obama to state he wants the USA to win at ANYTHING, much less a war that him and his liberal base despise. But let the mainstream media sympathize. Poor Obama is in a “tuff spot”.

Some nonsense in these posts. The issue is that in this case “North VIetnam” is the entire surrounding region. Iran is obviously hopeless, but their interest/ability is limited. Pakistan is the real problem. As is Russia, which no one appears to want to recognize. Fine. But the way to beat a bluff like the Taliban/al Qaeda is to CALL the bluff, not to cave in. In Iraq we called the bluff. The Iraqis saw Bush wobbling, saw our troops getting ambushed and IED’d, saw “sectarian strife” (i.e. al Qaeda and al Sadr) pushing the country toward open genuine civil war (not simply gang war). So instead of pull out Bush doubled-down, paid the sheikhs, sent our guys to kick some ass, demonstrated US power. These Asiatics respect power; they could give a sh_t about philosophy. Anyone who’s read the Koran, Hadith & Sura knows there isn’t a godd_mn speck of philosophy in there: it’s all “Allah knows,” “Allah will you crush you,” “There is no Dana there is only Zuul” which is just a script for a warlord to say as he stands above his new slaves. It is bullsh_t. You must be the strongest tribe.

Call the bluff. That’s what made all the difference. But of course then the problem with Pashtunistan will not go away just by sending 40k fine USA troops into the time warp of the Kush.

The idea that we’re going to be defeated by a bunch of boy molesting, school bombing, acid throwing, suicide bombing, head hunting, 120 pound islamofacist retards, who at most number 20,000 strong and are hated by over 90% of the Afghan population and have nothing more than fertilizer bombs, rusty AK47s and RPGs, some walkie talkies and a couple hundred mopeds… IS BEYOND INFURIATING. IT’S TREASON. McChrystal and Petraeus are brilliant. They KNOW how to win. All they need is Thief in Chief to approve them the resources they requested. SEND THE TROOPS NOW OR GO DOWN IN HISTORY AS THE WORST PRESIDENT IN AMERICAN HISTORY. LET US WIN.

Evidence please! History will record Petraeus as average and McCrystal is a complete unkmown.

Stanley has never held a combat command. He has been a Staff weenie most of his career. He managed to avoid anyplce where hee was shooting. So to say Stanley is brilliant might be correct, if one is making judgment based on his ability to use the Ring Knockers Association and old boy network to advance his career without ever getting shot at.
Sometimes that doesn’t matter. In WW2 Ike was given the top command because he was an excellent politician. That was what was needed. The UK and the US armed forces spent most of the war barely speaking to each other. “Over Paid, Over Sexed and Over here.” Worse then the Democrats and Republicans are today. Study the History. Patton once remarked that Bradly should let him go and he could drive the limeys into the sea, again. Georgie wasn’t joking.
From a military POV, Ike was at best incompetent. He was such a bad General that the Germans didn’t think they needed more then 20% of their strength to hold him off while they killed Russians.
What you are overlooking is the fact that It isn’t weapons that win wars, but the men using those weapons. The Vietnamese were at a greater disadvantage then the Taliban are. Remember who won that one?
My greatest fear is that the Paki’s and Russians can trick the USA into moving LOTS of troops into Afghanistan. Then they cut the supply lines and force a surrender. It happened at Bataan and Yorktown, plus many other places.
Most people don’t realize that at Bataan, the US and Filipinos out numbered the Japanse by almost 2 to 1. So the Japs just dug in and waited for them to starve or surrender.
At Yorktown, the Americans had the Brits trapped. Once the French Navy showed up and prevented the Brits from getting supplies, the Brits had to surrender.
So there is plenty of cause for concern.
Given the history and the fact that Stanley is lying, I’m worried. Anyone that cares about the US Military should be.
A CT Operations plan such as Stanley wants to use will require about 10x the amount of troops he is requesting. It looks to me like he is going for 650,000 40K at a time. That is in5an3 and he should be fired.
We don’t need a CT ops plan in Afghanistan. What should be done is an ‘area denial’ operation. No point in trying to make Afghanistan into a nation. Just keep the Taliban and AQ busy trying to stay alive to build training camps and suicide bomb factories. Afghanistan would be the perfect place to hunt down and kill terrorists.
Pundits talk about the coruption in Afghanistan. That is a judgement made on western values. In Afghanistan they use Shira Law, and bribes are not Illegal. So the Americans are raising a big fuss over something that is both legal and encouraged. Meanwhile, Female Soldiers are driving around in Hummers, which is extremely illegal by the Laws in effect in Afghanistan.
Do you really want to put 40,000 more hostages into Afghanistan?

I’ve actually been saying for a few *months* now that my big fear is Obama will pull an LBJ in Afghanistan, with out the backbone to either commit *or* just go ahead and quit.

If I were really cynical I would say that part of Obama’s dithering now is semi-intentional — hoping his visible weakness invites(provokes) a spectacular attack that costs a shocking number of US lives, so he would then be able to ‘reluctantly’ quit in response to the demands of ‘the people’ (which is what he’d really *like* to do despite the election year sham of trying to sound tougher on Bush wrt Afgh. merely to give him cover on his defeatism in Iraq)

The *only* bit of toughness Obama has shown wrt Natl Security has been on *not* rushing out of Gitmo or the Patriot Act. That seems strange at first glance given how utterly feckless (at best) he’s been in all other foreign matters, but is made clear when you remember that a successful domestic US terror attack is the Achilles’ heel of his #1 priority of turning the US crypto-socialist (Socialist in motivation but actually fascist in form, which term makes libs heads explode because they are ignorant of fascist economic methods which put the govt in charge while keeping the pretense of private property in business.)

Whatever happened to the original objective of finding Bin Laden? Wasn’t he supposed to be chased to the end of the world? That’s all they need to do and then get the h*** out of there. They don’t want us and our infidel ways in their country and it’s an illusion for us to think that they will change unless it comes from within. Islam is a long way from Enlightenment.

#19 Jed say: “The variables in that problem are numerous and complicated. Alexander the Great decided not to untie the knot of time but to cut it. Why is the U.S. in the nation building business? That strategy has yet to work.
The short form for cutting the knot is:
kill the Taliban
Burn the opium fields
Leave”

How did that work out in the First Iraq War, Jed? You don’t really want to repeat history do you?

34. Fred Beloit:
Feel free to expand on your point Fred. Was it about nation building?
My opinion is that the first Gulf War ended before the job was completed. H.Bush wanted to let the war be known as the 100 hour war. Politicians of NATO set the agenda. Iraq was left with a mad dictator, and an army, and betrayed alliances (the Kurds and swamp Arabs). Iraq is not Afghanistan for the terrain, people, or culture. Nation building in Iraq has yet to be resolved, although G. Bush’s plan of encouraging democracy is still vital.

It’s hard to find fault with General McChrystal’s strategic program as described. However, all is based upon the presence of a valid, popular, relatively corruption-free government. We do not yet have such a government and without it, the general’s program for releasing the country from the grip of the Taliban will come to naught. Without such a government there can be no national police force or national army. Immediately upon our departure, the country would be sure to sink back into the morass in which we currently find it.

I have believed, for quite some time now, that the reason a more aggressive search for Bin Laden has not been made is because years ago our government compromised his internal communications. This allows our government valuable intelligence that helps to prevent more terror attacks in our country. The government has made a decision that this intelligence is more valuable than limited military success in Afghanistan. We can eliminate Bin Laden and bring our kids home, but in doing so, we lose our valuable intelligence network. It is just possible that Obama and his minions have decided that keeping our troops in Afghanistan is not as politically acceptable to them as it was to the Bush administration. Obama may have activated the plan to get Bin Laden and is stalling on the troop commitment until Bin Laden is killed or captured. Obama can then declare the war on terrorism to be over and please his lefty political base, at the expense of losing a valuable tool for protecting the US citizens. I could be wrong, but this is the only explanation for Obama’s ‘dithering’ that I can make to fit with reality. Of course, I do have my doubts about whether Obama and his friends are actually connected to reality.

There is a third option, however, it’s even more radical than the other two: nuke the bastards. This war would be over in short order if we stopped fighting with both hands tied behind our backs and unleashed our full fury on them. All Taliban and Al Queda must surrender or be vaporized.

Jim, the problem with your theory is that Osama is smarter then ANYONE at the CIA. He knows his broadcast communications is compromised and only uses it for laying false trails. Real communications go by courier. Granted that takes a long time, but the war Osma is fighting has been going on since 621 AD and will go on for anther thousand years or more. Osama isn’t in a hurry.
My theory is that Osama is living in Flordia as another rich old jew and getting dialysis thru medicare. Certain people at the CIA know where he is, they just have to keep quiet to protect themselves.
The way to capture Osama is not by tramping thru the hills of Pakistan or the mountains of the Kush, but to offer a no questions asked pardon and that 50 mill reward to the CIA. Within 24 hours he would be in jail.
IF the capture team was on it’s game. Osama, like Saddam and the Mad Dog Mullahs, never goes anyplace that doesn’t have an escape route. 2 or 3 is better.

#49,
You seem to have it all figured out You know how Bin Laden communicates, you know where he lives, you know the CIA knows, you know that 50 million bucks would produce Bi Laden( even though 10 million has already been offered ), and best of all, you know Bin Laden is smarter than anyone at the CIA and knows he has hundreds of years to win this war. I think I will stay with my theory for a while longer, no disrespect to you, of course.

#51,
If you re-read my original post, you will find no indication that I believe Bin Laden is living in a cave, or even that he is in Afghanistan. But, I have also not heard any mention, beyond yours, that he could be in Florida. I get your limited point on this, but who are you quarreling with?

“Last but not least, you really don’t think the Usurper is going to get up off a check for 50 mill, do you? If I picked up ObL tomorrow, I would put him up on E-Bay and let the US try and out bid the KSA, or his family.
What would King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz Al Saud offer? A million barrels of OIL, 400 goats and his oldest unwed daughter?”

And what is the point of this discussion? I Did not use a ransom to support my idea. I am likely to be wrong about what I said I believe, as are you, but I guess my point was that I have no other understanding about why our President is waffling on his General’s and now his Secretary of Defense’s requests. Please re-read my original post and I am sure you follow what I have just said?

Scores of American soldiers have been killed in these past weeks since our leader ‘publicly’ began to ponder whether our nation’s armed forces should receive the support recommended (ordered) by our Defense Department.

Scores of American soldiers have been killed in these past weeks since our leader ‘publicly’ began to ponder whether our nation’s armed forces should receive the support recommended (ordered) by our Defense Department.